Digital DJ Licence

[ChrisPointon 0]

Just to add more input into the discussion. Has anybody come across the Berne convention publication issued and administered by the WIPO, and WTO? .

 

From their website:-

 

QUOTE

any country that is a signatory of the convention is awarded the same rights in all other countries that are signatories to the Convention as they allow their own nationals, as well as any rights granted by the Convention

 

Does this mean that if you were to transfer your CD collection to hard drive in a country where it was deemed to be perfectly legal, that you couldn't be prosecuted in the UK?.

 

Or

 

If a Spanish DJ came to work in the UK for 6 months with his laptop full of tracks converted from CD does this law mean that he / she couldn't be prosecuted because it is perfectly legal in his / her own country?

 

 

 

[Dukesy 0]

So in one respect, the legislation in the country is adopted with respect to 'copyright' infringement, or, in other words, whilst the term 'copyright' is universal, the individual country can legislate its own rules of copyright infringement, e.g. the MCPS being annoyed in not getting their cut from a legal download (site hosted outside the jurisdiction of the UK) but the copyright holder still gets their royalties from the host.

 

So to expand the point raised, if a DJ was to be taken to court for ripping their own original CD collection or legally downloaded a song from a foreign based webhost for 'commercial gain', when the 'Berne Convention' article is raised - the case could be thrown out of court?!

 

Need more clarification of the interpretation.

 

Berne Convention

 

Who wants to be a test case? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ChrisPointon 0]

The point was discussed by a consumer group recently, in respect of Ipods. The discussion was basically regarding the many semi-legal download sites which are springing up.

 

These are perfectly Legal downloads in all sense of the word because they charge the customer to download and then pay royalties direct to the artiste but we add the 'semi' to make the activity 'semi-legal' in the UK because the MCPS and BPI don't get their share of the copyright fee http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif effectively making those downloads illegal in our own jurisdiction!. Of course these types of downloads are often cheaper than in the UK, because they are paying the artiste directly and basically cutting out the middleman.

 

The way the discussion went, regarding Bernes Convention, was that if the country where you live was a signed member of the Bernes Convention, then you are entitled to download from legal music sites beyond the UK, without fear of breaking local laws. In other words, a form of 'free trade' ruling for downloads!.

 

If this is correct, and we have an accurate interpretation of this 'Bernes Convention' then it would make downloading from these cheaper eastern bloc sites perfectly acceptable and legal.

 

However, this is only based on discussion, assumption and some interpretation and with no real legal backing.

[Hugmaster 0]

Hi

 

I've just been having a look at the Digital DJing Licence terms.

 

I'd like to know how you're meant to prove you're the original owner of a song on a CD you may have purchased years ago, I don't know many people that keep CD receipt unless they have to.

 

You could very easily pop off to the library, rent a ton of compilations, copy them and say you bought them before you became a DJ and therefore didn't even consider keeping the receipt.

 

Also, those of us that use OtsDJ, will find that the licence is useless as Digital Rights management copies will not convert to the Ots format.

 

So, we're still being screwed!

 

Darren

[Gary 0]

Well, I'm still waiting for my response from them to my email (featured above) - to be fair, they are probably in-undated with enquiries from a whole new base of people who never had reason to contact them before - and I doubt they've recruited new permenant staff in to cover the rise in demand yet - a rise in demand that I suspect that they were hoping to avoid by farming the license availability out to Mastermix and DMC etc.

 

As for your question Darren, I'm not sure how a DJ would prove ownership of a particular track - although, the majority of people that I've spoken to face-to-face, and read "action points" from on the forum, are going to keep their original CD's handy, as back-ups for those "Just in case" moments - even in addition to a backup harddrive and backup laptop. - Ok, showing someone an original CD doesnt instantly prove 100% that you really, really own that CD, but its a start I guess.

 

I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to get the new license, once I'm ready to start transfering my vinyl to CDR (as long as PPL answer my question about CDRs being a format recognised by them as a storage medium for a "DJ database" and therefore covered in their license. BUT...at transfer/clean-up time I will also store the record company name against each track.

 

This will enable me to then follow the SG-6 licensing route via MCPS, for one of their £500 licenses which are a one-off payment of £500 per 5000 tracks (average), rather than £200+VAT each year forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever...

 

4 x SG-6 licenses (for 20000 tracks) = £2000 (or less - they hint at some sort of arrangable discount), an amount which would get me 6~7 years of digitaldjing license (taking into account VAT and index linked year-on-year increases to the DDJ licence.

 

 

[Digital discos 0]

You don't the SG-6 Licence do you? To be fully legal as a digital dj?

 

 

BTW Hugmaster - The OTS Format is essentially and MP3 just with more tag fields and information.

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (Digital discos @ Aug 31 2005, 09:47 AM)

You don't the SG-6 Licence do you? To be fully legal as a digital dj? BTW Hugmaster - The OTS Format is essentially and MP3 just with more tag fields and information.

You dont need an SG-6 and a digitaldjing licence for what I want to do - eg: vinyl to CD-R.

 

BUT as soon as Harddrive comes into it...then its definately the digitaldjing licence thats required.

 

Given that in the future I might want to trust background and buffet music parts of a function to a hardrive system, like the Numark HDCD-1 dual cd-deck with harddrive, then I would have to purchase a digitaldjing license from that year on (and on and on...) anyway... meaning that I wouldnt need the SG-6 route.

 

 

Hmmmm, looks like I'll have to sit tight and wait for PPL to reply to my request for information about CD-R's as a database medium. tick...tick....tick....Wake me up, when September ends.... I might have a reply by then...

[Eskie 0]

To all the people that seem to be petrified at the lack of clarity in the various licences and ambiguities. I'm not a betting man but I would bet that a good lawyer would be able to hammer the PRS, BPI etc IF such a case ever went to court.

Many people/DJs have gone out of their way to get certain points clarified and are still no wiser, meanwhile millions of people use mp3's on iPods and other similar gadgets.

Anyone who has ever been involved in a trial doing jury service will know firsthand how adept the legal profession are at using loopholes and lack of clarity to get their clients off; this issue is very unlikely to be any different.

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (Gary @ Aug 16 2005, 12:46 PM)

Also...(I've just emailed them about this) - it doesnt appear to cover the usage of CDR's, CDRWs' etc - which I would want to use under the license for "archiving" my CD-singles (and vinyl) as a space saving exercise, and for convenience of use.

Ok then folks - remember that I've got two separate emails pending reply with PPL; one which gave them lots of examples about "DJ A does things this way, DJ B does things that way etc"...and then there was the email previous to that, which was basically loads of questions about the various "small print" in the terms and conditions of the licence.

 

Well, I've now received the answers back from PPL about their clarification of their terms and conditions. There are some replies which we unfortunately suspected, there are some parts which we all thought "Surely they cant mean it that way", but unfortunately they do, and various other shrugable "Oh well" bits and pieces too.

 

The PPL reply to me ends in a huge disclaimer/warning about the answer being given to me personally, and that I'm not allowed to dispense the information given therein publically etc,etc,etc without their permission. I've emailed the writer of the letter and have asked for their permission re: the disclaimer.

 

If I cant cut'n'paste the whole lot, I'll simply tell you all their individual answers in some non-cut'n'paste method.

 

1 x set of questions down .... spawning almost the same number of questions for phase II of the same questions.

 

And of course, the "DJ A requires...", "DJ B requires" questions are still with PPL, but at least I have confirmation that they have received those (I sent them recorded delivery, so they couldnt help but receive them), and are working on the reply.

 

We might not like the clearer picture, but it needed clarification.

 

I'll keep you posted.

[Dukesy 0]

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/whistling.gif

[ian 0]

Gary - Thanks for all the work you're putting into this.

[transeurope 0]

I haven't quite been following this thread too closely, but a moderator has drawn my attention to the issue of various international copyright conventions and asked me to comment.

 

All international agreements are either enforceable or unenforceable.

 

Two good examples of enforceable agreements are the UN Charter and the Treaty of Rome and subsidiary Treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty.

 

If the General Assembly of the UN holds that a member has breached it AND the ENTIRE security council votes it as well AND no security council member exercises a veto then the UN can take whatever means it sees fit, military or economic to enforce the will of the UN. Of course this rarely happens.

 

The EU is a bit more activist and has a much simpler sanctions procedure (although still pretty complex). In short both bodies have teeth, and in the case of the EU very sharp ones.

 

The Berne convention has NO enforcement mechanism. All the members have agreed to put certain measures into their countries' national legislation and enforce it through their national courts. If a member doesn't implement it, there is no enforcement body that can be appealed to.

 

Other UN conventions on copyright would require such an enormous act of coordination on behalf of the UN for such a trivial issue that it is unrealistic to expect change from this route.

 

There is no EU ruling on copyright issues surrounding digital music yet, indeed the EU expressly has left it to individual states to decide for the time being.

 

Therefore the international copyright route is not currently an answer to this.

 

Having said that the UK is obliged to keep the EU's Lisbon Agenda in mind in making law. This allows for service sector mobility and competition between member states. This would seem an area open to exploration for legal minds as the current licence seems to move legislation away from this goal.

[Gary 0]

To be fair to those working in the PPL on the phones and the email replies, I must say that when I emailed them earlier, thanking them for their answers and asking if I could post the content of their reponce onto a DJ forum, I was expecting to have to wait a day or more for any kind of response - and even a negative response at that. I was, therefore very surprised to find an email, timed at after 17:45, giving me the OK to cut'n'paste the answers.

 

Now, I'm an optimistic sorta fella, but one of PPLs answers is definately going to generate an uproar - as it simply means that a vast percentage of DJs will not be able to function on a harddrive based system entirely - every DJ in the land will need some other music source - read about that a little latter (see about "background music")

 

Another of PPLs answers wont find favour with two man shows (eg: DJ + Roadie)

 

One other answer from PPL has (so far...) blown out my own interests in the PPL digital DJ licence - as they have clarified that its "harddrives only" - neither the database, nor the backup database can be CDR.

 

In the interests of clarity of this cut'n'paste, I've used the following colours:

 

The PPL digital DJ licence terms and conditions are shown in Bold Black

 

My Question about each respective part of those terms and condition is shown in Blue

PPL's reply/answer to my question, is shown in Green

 

My own thoughts "Live", tonight as I read their reply, I've added in Red

 

 

QUOTE

Hi there   I'm hoping that you would be able to answer the following questions for me regarding the new Digital DJing License.     For clarity, I have included the parts of the license terms and conditions which appear to relate to each enquiry.     Questions:   Relating to: 1.         Definitions and Interpretation 1.1       The following definitions apply in this Licence: “DJ Database” means copies of one or more Sound Recordings in digital form which are stored solely on a single computer or hard disk unit (or such other Record or Records as may be agreed in writing between PPL and the Licensee). “the Back-up Database” means a single computer or hard disk unit (or such other Record or Records as may be agreed in writing between PPL and the Licensee) storing back-up copies in digital form of the Sound Recordings on the DJ Database.   Both the definitions of “DJ database” and “Back-up Database”  indicate the use of a hard disk drive.  I want to use the license to transfer my sizable collection of vinyl records and LP’s onto reliable recordable CD discs (CDR) at home, and take just those CDR’s to discos with me. – The backup database (at home) would be either a hard disc drive, or just an additional set of CDR’s.    No two CDR's would be the same eg: Not 50 x copies of the same 20 tracks - these would most likely be in data format (just like a harddrive) rather than audio format.   Can you confirm that this  interpretation  is acceptable as both “DJ Database” and “Backup database” under terms of the license.   To my mind, the transferring of music track between original source eg: vinyl LP onto a different digital medium, is still taking place –its merely the type of digital storage medium that is being used .  /in computer/IT terms a "backup" can be on any medium not just a harddrive.  No.  The Digital DJ Licence only applies to the copying of sound recordings onto a computer or hard disk.  (The back up must also be on a computer or hard disk).  It does not cover copying onto CDRs I take this to mean that the Digital DJ Licence doesnt offer (as it stands) any rights to those DJs wishing to compile CDRs of their most popular tracks.     2.2       For the avoidance of doubt no rights in respect of the following acts are granted under this Licence:             (1)        the public performance of Sound Recordings; (3)        the Dubbing of Sound Recordings for the purpose of the public performance of those Sound Recordings as background music; and (4)        the transfer of Sound Recordings to third parties (including other DJs).     With regards to 2.2  (1) “the public performance of Sound Recordings”   it is my understanding that there has been no need for a specific PPL type license if a mobile DJ is booked privately to play music at a private party, eg: A Dad books a disco for his daughters wedding reception, where family and friends will be invited to attend free of charge.  If the DJ in this “family event” example were to be using tunes recorded onto a hardrive or CDR’s (from existing vinyl) etc, would the DJ still need this dubbing license, even though the event was private/family? The licence only allows copying for the purposes of public performance as specially featured entertainment.  It would not, therefore cover events that do not qualify as public performances. Now I take this to mean that either that harddrive systems such as laptops and PC's can only be used at public functions eg: Dinner dances, Office Christmas Parties etc but NOT at private do's eg: Weddings, 40th Birthdays, and pay-on-the-door events...meaning that a DJ doing private gigs would need to cover themselves with some other licence at such events, OR it means that no performance licences are required for such events - Possiblely an SG-6 would enable CDRs to be created, but to my knowledge, the SG6 does not cover hard drives.   With regards to 2.2 (3).  Part of many family events include a certain amount of background music, for example mobile DJ’s are often asked to set up their equipment before a wedding breakfast and provide quiet background music during the meal, or whilst people wish to converse prior to the evening buffet etc. all of this being prior to the music being elevated to the main source of entertainment, eg: music to dance to.    Would 2.2(3) restrict music tracks stored on a DJs DJ database from being used for background music, as described in my example above, necessitating  a non-database method of background music being played prior to the main disco music?   Yes. A harddrive based system can be used to play primary music - eg: music which is provided as the primary source of entertainment - but NOT background music - suggesting that background music/buffet music must still come from non-hard drive music sources eg: CD-deck/vinyl. 2.3 states that “The DJ Database and the Back-up Database are for the sole use of the Licensee”.     Often the named DJ will have an assistant with them to assist with the moving, setting up and running of the equipment.  This assistant (“roadie”) may, on rare occasion, be required to select and play music whilst the DJ is otherwise engaged – eg: working away from the equipment at front-of-stage, Interacting with the crowd, for example.   Would this licence restriction prevent such occasional uses of “the database” by a DJs assistant – where both DJ and their assistant are attending the same function/disco. Yes. I take this to mean that if its your name of the Digital DJ licence, then specifically YOU are the only person allowed to use tracks which are featured on your DJ database.   3.         Dubbing obligations 3.1       The Licensee hereby warrants, represents and undertakes that it shall: (1)        Dub each Track in its entirety provided that the Fade-down Section of any Track may be subject to the use of premature fade and cross-faded or overlapped with the Track following immediately thereafter provided that the period of audible cross fade or overlap does not exceed 2 (two) seconds; This obligation confuses me totally.  Does it mean that when played out to an audience, two different, single tracks must not be mixed/blended together for more than 2 seconds overlap?  Or, does it mean that at the point of dubbing tracks onto the DJ database, that no automatic overlap is utilised DURING the dubbing process.  Eg: All tracks must be dubbed as single recordings eg:  2 different 3 minute tracks must not be blended into 1 x 6 minute track stored on the DJ database.   Or, does it mean that 2 different 3 minute tracks CAN be blended together with a 2 second crossfade, making 1 x long track of 5minutes and 58seconds on the DJ database – but that say, a 10 second crossfade between the 2  tracks, creating 1 x long track of 5 minutes 50 seconds, is not permitted to be stored as a single track on the DJ database. The obligation relates to the dubbing process rather than the play out - meaning that your last example is correct. I take this to mean that you cant record your own megamixes, remixes etc onto the harddrive - only single tracks - UNLESS your mix from track to track is 2 seconds of overlap, or less at the very very end of the tracks in question (no mixing out half way through)   Section (4) states “not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate the sounds of any Sound Recording so that the sounds on the Dubbed copy of the Sound Recording are different from those on the original Sound Recording”.   It is regrettably quite common nowadays, for several music tracks per year to feature swear words and other verbal profanities within the lyrics of a track.  Several DJ’s I know would be keen to blank-out (with a fraction of a seconds silence) such profanities from the track stored on their DJ database (if they were to go ahead with a database playback solution), thereby making the track more socially acceptable, and therefore playable to a wider range of audiences (surely beneficial, in terms of media exposure, to the artists involved).  Would this minor adjustment be permissible under the digital dj license, or forbidden?. Not under the terms of the licence.  The DJ cannot edit the track in any way other than set out in Clause 3.1(1). I take this to mean that you may not edit out rude words on the stored track - you'll need to apply fading, beeping, dumping or splicing "live" each time that you play the track.   Section 4.1 states “(j)            download copies of Sound Recordings from unauthorized websites or from unlicensed peer-to-peer networks.   Can you advise whether there is a recognized list of “authorized” websites, or is it simply ANY of the “household name” pay-to-download type sites eg: Woolworths downloads, HMV downloads etc. The best place to look is:  http://www.pro-music.org./musiconline.htm. I take this to mean that if you've got a favourite site to buy legitimate downloaded music from, check that they're listed in here...   Many thanks in advance for your attentions in this matter.   Thank you   Gary

Edited October 26, 2005 by Gary

[transeurope 0]

Egads, you put a lot of work into that in all fairness Gary.

 

Just a pity that they didn't when they drew up the licence!

 

I still harbour a suspicion that given the fact that the reason the licence is so limited is that the people providing it themselves have little/no statutory powers.

 

How can they empower you to do what is not in their remit to start with?

 

 

[brianmole 0]

Well done Gary, this is cetainly going to be a thermal solanum tuberosum http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/188.gif http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wacko.gif

[FDDJ 0]

Excellent work Gary http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/thumbup.gif

 

Having read through the responses I stand by my initial interpretation that the licence is not required for the "Private Functions" that I work at (e.g. Weddings, Birthdays etc.) because the PPL website clearly states that these events are not specially featured entertainment. So I will not be handing over my hard earned.

 

So once again I am left pondering how Mastermix have the gall (in my opinion) to keep pushing this licence to DJ's who in the vast majority (again in my opinion) simply do not need it.

 

Very poor show. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/mad.gif

[Dukesy 0]

Gary - very good work and quite interesting.

 

So in laymans terms, we don't need a license if the function is private.....but if the venue is inspected at the time of the function, or, the venue management are instructed to 'inform' on DJ services / blacklist DJs who do not have 'digital license' paperwork.......we are generally doomed?

 

This is Big Brother.........would the DJ please leave the house

[RobbieD 0]

Thanks for all your hard work Gary. http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/thumbup.gif

 

But as expected, this will raise another set of questions.

 

For example, at what point does music become background music?

 

Do the PPL what to specify a minimum volume at which we can play at under the licence? (Do I hear "Can you turn it down a bit" - "Sorry the PPL says this is the minimum volume at which I am licenced"!)

 

Or is it background if the DJ doesn't act as "featured entertainment" (sorry "sit and click play" DJ's - the PPL says you need to start entertaining).

 

And will DJ mix software companies add a "PPL DDJ compliant auto 2 second crossfade" function, for those wishing to record a mix.

 

And how come radio stations are allowed to edit swear words out of songs dubbed to their hard disc's yet DJ's performing at weddings and children's parties aren't.

 

I'm certainly continuing with CD until the dust settles. (Although it looks like I might have to start carrying turntables and vinyl now!)

[Gary 0]

QUOTE (RobbieD @ Oct 26 2005, 09:08 AM)

But as expected, this will raise another set of questions. For example, at what point does music become background music? Do the PPL what to specify a minimum volume at which we can play at under the licence? (Do I hear "Can you turn it down a bit" - "Sorry the PPL says this is the minimum volume at which I am licenced"!) Or is it background if the DJ doesn't act as "featured entertainment" (sorry "sit and click play" DJ's - the PPL says you need to start entertaining). And will DJ mix software companies add a "PPL DDJ compliant auto 2 second crossfade" function, for those wishing to record a mix. And how come radio stations are allowed to edit swear words out of songs dubbed to their hard disc's yet DJ's performing at weddings and children's parties aren't. I'm certainly continuing with CD until the dust settles. (Although it looks like I might have to start carrying turntables and vinyl now!)

My sentiments entirely.

 

The fact that the PPL Digital DJ licence doesnt apply to us if we do private functions, can I beleive, be taken in two ways; The other way being, that the PPL Digital DJ Licence doesnt cover us ripping tracks from one medium and storing them on/using another (eg: Original CDs to CDR)... an action which the MCPS's SG-6 would indeed be required for - if its jurisdiction covers harddrives that is.

 

This could mean that for a DJ with a laptop, booked for a 40th birthday one Friday and a company dinner dance the night after, would need an SG6 for the one night, but the PPL Digital DJ license for the next night.

 

Certainly I will be sending more questions back to PPL, basically to confirm my understanding (in red above) of their answers yesterday. Also, of course, there's still the "DJ A requires, DJ B requires" answers still to come.

[ian 0]

Very interesting reading. If anything, it means that it's of less interest to me than ever - since if I was to go down an MP3 route, then I'd be looking to play MP3 CD's rather than a hard drive.

 

The background music thing is really wierd. How would they differentiate? If you make sure that there's always one person dancing to the background music, does that make it non-background music? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Paul Forsyth 0]

Very interesting Gary and all credit to you mate.

 

http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/thumbup.gif

 

As has been suggested by Transeurope - the response and limitations of this license do indeed lead one to think that the whole thing is a complete blag and sham, their retail partners also should be looking very carefully at their part in this con - I can only think that the manufacturers and retailers of this seriously flawed product thought that dj's were complete idiots that would sign on the line as soon as these bullys started waving their big stick at us.

 

Whether this directly affects you or not, I think it has to be a united stance on this one, because if they get away with this unjust, immoral, and unworkable license they WILL find a way to screw cd dj's next.

 

Cheers for all your work on this Gary

 

Vinnie

Edited October 26, 2005 by Vinnie

[Eskie 0]

Without meaning to dismiss the extremely hardwork that Gary and others have put into extracting information; the statements from PPL from the very beginning are farcical and I'm reminded of a scene from the "Life of Brian"... 'They're making it up as they go along'! (slightly paraphrased).

They're living in cloud cuckoo land and until they grasp some realism many DJs will simply ignore this completely impractical/unrealistic "licence" http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/yucky.gif

[partychris 0]

ok i am very confused but hey thats not hard,

One question, what is the difference between a christmas office party and a wedding or birthday ??

How comes one is a public performance and the other not? ! http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/wallbash.gif

[FDDJ 0]

PPL state the following:

 

"Under UK copyright law (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) a PPL licence is required when sound recordings subject to our control are played in public. By ‘public’ we mean any event except a family or domestic gathering. An event such as an office party, a Christmas disco or a Valentine’s Day dinner dance is public. An example of a private event would be a wedding reception or birthday party."

 

I wonder if PPL will ever say why they discriminate between private & public events? http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/533.gif

 

[Andy Westcott 0]

I suppose it comes down to the people being invited, rather than coming in off the street, as it were. Weddings, Birthdays etc are by invitation.

 

I wonder what the situation would be if you were to hold a disco in the local village hall, for no specific purpose, but attended by invitation only. Is this also a private function?

 

This whole thing confuses me, also.........